A Not-So-Special Relationship America and Britain

The Brexiteers presented a revived partnership with the United States as the cornerstone of Britain’s new Anglosphere-centered diplomacy. Without the United States, any Anglosphere project would lose meaning, and the future of Britain outside the European Union would be grim. But this chapter argues that the focus on the “special relationship” was based on a delusional national myth. Historically, the specialness, which discounted an enormous gap in terms of power and influence between the two countries, has been more keenly felt in London than in Washington. Since 1945, America’s absolute strength and Britain’s relative weakness has always determined a highly unbalanced relationship. In the eyes of Dean Acheson—Secretary of State in the Truman Administration—British rhetoric surrounding the “special” connection between the two countries reflected nothing more than the UK’s unwillingness to accept its post-imperial status: that of a simple transatlantic intermediary and Anglo-Saxon balancer in European affairs. It has been observed that, from 1945 onwards, the “special relationship” rapidly assumed the character of a “special dependancy”, with Britain being very much the junior partner. Currently, the difference in terms of power and influence between the two countries is as great as in the past—if not even greater, given Britain’s diminished influence in European affairs. On top of that, bridging the policy inconsistencies between “America First” (based on unilateralism and protectionism) and “Global Britain” (based on multilateralism and free markets) might represent an insurmountable obstacle.

A Global Epidemic

The world is becoming populated by jingoistic leaders who appeal to past national glory and inhabit a rose-tinted past. Brexit is merely the tipping point of a global phenomenon. Chinese President Xi Jinping calls for the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese people”, whereas Donald Trump promises to “Make America Great Again”. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan harbors neo-Ottoman ambitions, while Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s political lodestar is the nineteenth-century Meiji Restoration. In other cases, nostalgic leaders reject their countries’ historical reversals of fortune like Viktor Orbán in Hungary and Vladimir Putin in Russia. Despite its romantic flavor, nostalgia is actually a malaise – a mix of paranoia and melancholy. Like most psychological disorders, nostalgia is usually accompanied by amnesia. It depicts the past in such an idealized way that some crucial details are lost. Human beings tend to view historical evidence in a myopic manner, ignoring what does not fit their preconceptions. Populist leaders simply leverage these mental processes to recount their own version of history and mobilize their followers. The chapter analyzes how demographic, economic and technological forces are spreading the disease of longing in a structural way.

Introduction

A brief overview of the main topics discussed throughout the book, with a focus on the emotional roots of today’s geopolitical disorder. More and more countries are becoming trapped in a past that no longer exists. Nostalgia offers relief from socio-economic angst and becomes an emotional weapon in the political debate used by jingoist leaders. Although nostalgic nationalism is a global phenomenon, it is Brexit that epitomizes it in its purest form. Only in the United Kingdom is it possible to identify the three moments of a periodizing nostalgic narrative: the “golden days”; the “great rupture”; and the “present discontent”. The golden age is represented by the imperial era. The rupture came not only with the slow demise of the British Empire, but also with the decision to join the European project in 1973. The present discontent is caused by the unwillingness of many Britons to come to terms with Britain’s transformation into an ordinary nation-state. The rest of the chapter discusses the structure of the book. The first section looks at how nostalgia is abused to build national myths capable of mobilizing a country toward a common goal. The second dismantles some of the reality distortion created by Brexiteers’ nostalgic rhetoric.

The Foreign Policy of Nostalgia

The politics of nostalgia worked its magic in the context of the Brexit referendum, where a single Yes or No vote was needed to make a difference, but it was hardly enough to manage the post-referendum environment, and it is certainly not a good compass for navigating the twenty-first century’s international system. Brexiteers fantasized about London’s future based on its glorious past, but never laid out a clear, practical, and pragmatic plan leading away from Brussels and towards their idealized temporal destination. The gap between restorative aspirations and political reality was simply too wide. Since June 2016, Brexiteers have flirted with a variety of proposals. They had no real clue where they were heading, with their options ranging from a “glorious Brexit”, a “red-white-and-blue Brexit”, a “hard Brexit” to a “soft Brexit”, a “clean Brexit”, a “jobs-first Brexit”, and even the “no-deal Brexit”. This chapter is aimed at dismantling the fallacies produced by nostalgic arguments, with a particular focus on the Commonwealth, the “Singapore plus” model and security policy.

Birth of an Idea

Brexiteers’ historical and nostalgic elucubrations coincide with a concrete, albeit utopian, political project: that of Global Britain. Bringing this to fruition entails rekindling old friendships in the Commonwealth, rediscovering the special relationship with America, and intensifying links with Asian economies. This chapter shows how the debate concerning Great Britain’s global role is nothing more than the culmination of an intellectual dispute that has lasted for more than 150 years—since the late Victorian era when the British Empire’s global pre-eminence was slipping as a result of combined internal and external fractures. It all started in 1873 at the Oxford Union, with a debate on how to reorganize and modernize Pax Britannica. Since then, plans have differed in detail, but they have all sought to unite the Anglosphere behind a common purpose. Some have called for the creation of a British imperial federation or a multi-national commonwealth, while others would have liked to see a more formalized Atlantic Union, or even a new Anglo-American state. Hardcore Brexiteers simply continued this project. All the institutional arrangements proposed over the years were intrinsically nostalgic and utopian. They attempted to creatively preserve a past that was falling apart by promoting Britain’s political and economic interests to the detriment of increasingly more assertive colonies. Unsurprisingly, none of these proposals has ever amounted to anything. Nostalgia, which tends to oversimplify reality, hardly makes for enlightened politics and effective policies.

Constructing a Nostalgic Narrative

This chapter reconstructs the nostalgic national myth created by Brexiteers during the EU Referendum campaign. Myths, which by definition are a mix of truth and lies, are not descriptions of things, but expressions of a determination to act. When a nation is at a crossroads, for example before a war or an existential referendum, the glories of the past can influence people to take one path over another. The Brexiteers scrupulously built their own nostalgic myth, paying attention to its credibility, idealizing a specific historical era, and creating strong links between Brexit and Britain’s history. In the end, past, present and future were so intertwined that it was impossible to distinguish them. Britain’s past golden age was suddenly seen as its new beginning. Brexiteers monopolized and nationalized British history to convey a message that was consistent with their political agenda. This chapter is a step-by-step description of how the aforementioned nostalgic national myth was fabricated. It will also show that the “now and here” strategy adopted by the Remain camp failed because it was too rational at a time when the electorate was experiencing a highly emotional moment, partly caused by the financial crisis, and more broadly, by globalization.

Nostalgia and the Future of Sovereignty

Although it is difficult to identify another place where national consciousness and dissatisfaction with its current global role are as intertwined as in Britain, similar forms of nostalgic nationalism might affect other countries in the future. Nostalgia, after all, has penetrated the foundations of the socio-political fabric of several nations and structural forces, such as ageing populations, mass immigration and technological disruptions, which will reinforce attitudes of longing. This is why it is important to start a serious discussion about the “nostalgic politics” that is likely to become a distinctive feature of this part of the twenty-first century, and also a threat to the liberal international order. The problem with nostalgia is that it induces individuals to shift their political attitudes in favor of a nationalist agenda. In the end, the politics of nostalgia can be seen as part of the battle for sovereignty to regain control over the fate of a nation and its identity. To succeed in the game of today’s emotional politics, mainstream parties need to play by its rules. They should themselves leverage the past, which offers ample evidence that progress in the future is always still possible, countering restorative nostalgia with reflective nostalgia.

The Anglo-Saxon Tribe

Hardcore Brexiteers, a minority within the Leave camp, clung nostalgically to the idea that Britain would find her rightful place within a renewed Anglosphere—namely, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States; that it would go from being an ordinary European Union member state to a modern version of the old imperial Mother Country. This chapter argues that the Anglosphere already exists in many fields, but that it is invisible within the political atmosphere, and can hardly be turned into something more institutionalized, as claimed can be done by Leavers. All the rather impressive forms of collaboration in intelligence, diplomacy, education and security among these countries do not imply the establishment of a more structured political community. It is precisely the lack of political integration that likely prevents these countries from clashing over thorny issues, giving the impression of a relatively cohesive grouping.

Nostalgia as an Emotional Weapon

Nostalgia is a multifaceted concept that leads to contrasting political outcomes. Reflective nostalgia is the benign form of the malaise. It looks at the past through critical eyes and recognizes that something might have been lost, but that much has been gained along the way. Restorative nostalgia, which proposes to rebuild the lost home, is the malignant form. The problem is that the world is now primarily dealing with a toxic restorative nostalgia used for political ends. Ordinary citizens struggle to adapt to the disruptions imposed on them by global forces that are out of their control, inducing them to find comfort in historical eras when life was easier, slower, and less colored by uncertainty. When thrown into political debates, nostalgia becomes an emotional weapon that can be used either defensively or offensively. To those who reject a cosmopolitan world and yearn for the socio-economic opportunities that were enjoyed by older generations, nationalism promises a source of identity and security. Equally, for those who aspire to restore the national glory of the past, nationalism provides a means to gain influence – to the detriment of other nations. This chapter shows why it is possible to talk about nostalgic nationalism only in the United Kingdom.